Open source projects in MASM32

[TmX]

Sorry if this question is already asked.

The MASM32 license is one hard reading.  :dazzled:

Anyway, I still don't understand this:

The MASM32 project cannot be used to create open source software.

Let's say I wrote a freeware in MASM32, and decided to release the source code to public.
Is that allowed?

[Jimg]

Yes, of course you can release the source.  Yes, I also think the license is hard to interpret.

By open source, I think Hutch is referring to any licensing system, specifically like GPL, that trys to hijack all or parts of the Masm32 project code and put it under it's own license.  Basically, you can do what you want, but in any license you use to publish your code, any clause that tries to dictate what can, cannot, or must be done with any part of the actual Masm32 package is null and void.

[hutch--]

TmX,

What you write is actually your own so any source code you write is yours to publish as you choose but the content of the MASM32 project is protected by copyright so it cannot be stolen by other licencing systems. The MASM32 project was written for programmers, not licencing systems and it has been licenced very carefully to ensure that no-one can impose additional conditions or charges for its content or how programmers use it.

"Open Source" software is licenced in such a way that the licence controls and owns the code used in the project. The MASM32 licence specifically excludes other licencing systems to protect its contents so that any programmer can use it at no cost or extra conditions.

[oldnuke69]

Your restrictions are still not clear to me.  One portion of the license states: "The MASM32 project cannot be used to create open source software or any other project under any form of licence that requires the user of the MASM32 project to surrender the rights they are afforded under the MASM32 licence. In particular the MASM32 licence completely excludes projects licenced under the GNU organisation's published GPL licence and/or variants."

If someone wishes to create software that would be licensed under the GPL or similar license, it appears that your license prohibits the use of MASM32 to create such software.  Your comments indicate that you think this would somehow compromise your source code, and I am having difficulty understanding that.  Thanks for any enlightenment you can provide.

[hutch--]

Hi nuke,

Some people have problems with freeware because they have not read the GPL licence properly. MASM32 is copyright freeware and is protected that way to ensure that nothing else can take over any of its content. This means that it can always be downloaded at no cost and importantly it affords rights to the end user that protect them from parasitic licences like GPL and similar.

Read GPL below the itroductory waffle and term redefinitions and you will find a highly restrictive licence that owns code you write and forces you to publish your own code if you use ANY GPL code.

The MASM32 project dates from 1997 and it does not owe one byte of code to the Free Software Foundation or GPL

If you want to write freeware and supply your source code with it, thats fine, MASM32 protects your right to do this at no cost, no royalties and no forced code publication and you can sell your apps that use it, give them away or even eat them if you can find out how to do it but it cannot be stolen by competitive parasitic licencing systems.

MASM32 was written by programmers for programmers as freeware, it will never be available under the control of the corporations that fund GPL.

If someone wishes to create software that would be licensed under the GPL or similar license, it appears that your license prohibits the use of MASM32 to create such software.

The licence is specific and not negotiable, none of the enclosed software can be used to create software under any form of restricted licence and GPL and similar parasitic licencing systems.

[UtillMasm]

 :bg
release masm assembly source code is legal,
just like someboy speak chinese to everybody.

[japheth]

:bg
release masm assembly source code is legal,
just like someboy speak chinese to everybody.

Absolutely true. It will always be perfectly legal to release source code under GPL, even if the source looks like valid Masm syntax and - YES! - even if it contains a line like "include \masm32\include\windows.inc". Since the writer has the full copyright of his/her creation, no alien product's license can change this fact.

It's a different matter if precompiled binaries are distributed - if they contain parts of Masm32. However, most parts of Masm32 are NOT redistributable, so this may apply only to Masm32 modules which are statically linked into the redistributed binary.

[hutch--]

Its always the case that what you write is your own and you can do what you like with it but that of course goes for anyone else because the issue here is ownership.

MASM32 is licenced to ensure it is always free to the extent that its licence prohibits anyone from selling it.
The user owns their own code and can freely use any of the code from MASM32 without any form or royalties, crediting the origin or requirement to publish their code for others to use.

What the masm32 licence prohibits is anyone stealing the code and selling it or re licencing it with any other conditions.

The clash here is two different systems, GPL OWNS the code under its licence and it imposes conditions on publishing code that uses GPL code. For anyone who has any doubts, read the GPL licence down past the waffle and term redefinitions and you will find a draconian set of restrictions on what you can do with it once you are locked into their system.

MASM32 has none of those restrictions and is licenced to make sure it stays that way.

> However, most parts of Masm32 are NOT redistributable

No, ALL PARTS of masm32 are NOT redistributable.

[japheth]

> However, most parts of Masm32 are NOT redistributable

No, ALL PARTS of masm32 are NOT redistributable.

Thanks for clarifying! I once had the impression that Izcelion's Win32 tutorial are free to use - and redistribute - unless used commercially, but admittedly I'm not up-to-date with your project and things might have changed since 2001 A.D.  :'(

[hutch--]

Iczelion's tutorials were always sourced from his own site and I have the right to distribute them which I don't do any longer but they were always his property. He made them available to anyone who wanted them but never licenced them for redistribution. There may still be a site in France that distributes them as a follow on from his own site that is long gone but they were never licenced to redistribute.

[v104]

I know I'm responding to a very old thread but couldn't find a more recent on-point thread.

It's an awesome idea to protect the MASM32 project itself against GPL and alike. However anybody who writes software using MASM32 should be able to release their product under GPL, even if the license system sucks. After all, it's their own product, right?

[hutch--]

Nope,

Everyone has a theory, try and sell GPL code without publishing it and you will find out what a law suit is about. Cuts both ways, try and run any decent size open source project using tools that prohibit their use for open source and you will run into the tools owner.

Better to write your own code and use another assembler.

[jj2007]

Excuse my ignorance, but if I use print str$(123), publish the project under GPL, and thus have to publish alongside "the source", i.e. print str$(123), where is the problem? GPL can't force you to distribute the whole Masm32 package with it. After all, you don't have to supply the compiler and its libraries if you add a tiny little bit of C code, right?

[aker]

Where is the source code?

[hutch--]

Same old story, ownership, try and sell GPL code without publishing the source and you will end up with a law suit.

What you do with your own code is your own business but what you do with other people's binaries or code is another matter, I offer GPL what I get from it, nothing. The MASM32 project is copyright to protect it from being stolen and given to the GNU organisation among others.

I still don't see why the open source brigade don't write their own code and use an open source assembler.